Could be more, depending on who the Republican candidate turns out to be. Take it to the bank.

Let's say I'm cautiously optimistic.

I know I'm making a very early prediction, but my predictions are usually pretty accurate, based on past results.

Still, I haven't bought airline tickets for the inauguration just yet.

I thought you knew.

Best wishes for a full recovery.

to put your money where your mouth is?

Even if I did, I wouldn't gamble with an anonymous screen name online. Sorry. What I will do, though, is work my ass off canvassing in my precinct and neighboring districts to get out the vote. Will that do?

Been doing it for more than 40 years now. So you would put your money on it, but you don't bet. Sounds a little strange and not very genuine to me. But hey, you do what you do.

As I live in NY, I have been getting my ass out to canvass for Sanders myself. Lately I have a break, because here in NY, you have to be a registered Democrat by this past 9 October. That gives me a little break, before I go out and canvass for Bernie again. Of all the folks that I have canvassed in my local area, and surrounding town, I only get positive feedback about Bernie. This even comes from some staunch conservatives. This is why I feel that Sanders stands a better chance in the general election than Clinton. That being said, I may give it a rest if my candidate is not the Party candidate, since the Party candidate will win here in NY, and I need a break. I have a full time job as well. I do this sort of stuff on breaks at work, and mealtimes. It gets more difficult physically as I get older, but that's me.

I will vote for her in the general. As will a majority of other voters in CT.

You also don't address the fact that Independents are by far the largest bloc of voters in the electorate. Obama, and those who ended up backing him in 2008, were quite well aware of that.

Hillary's exceedingly high negatives are nothing new. It was that way in 2008, and fortunately the Democratic Party was prepared to put forward another candidate. As candidate Obama observed in February, 2008:

Will we be so wise and fortunate, again?

candidate in terms of her electability at present, and barring a surge by Bernie, who I support btw, she's got a lot of people "seeing" her as our next president. The repubs can't get their shit together and with all their crazy, unpopular ideas will turn off the general voting public. It's what they do.

Hillary has the durability to go the extra mile. She's as good as anybody at it.

Hey, just my two cents...

She's scarred and her reputation for honesty and judgement is seriously damaged. That does not bode well in the General. Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this.

We got the players, IMO. The other side has nuttiness...and they're looking nuttier by the day...

Nuts generally don't recognize nuttiness. Maybe half the voters, maybe more maybe less, in any US election are nuts. That's what makes them nuts and elections difficult to predict. How did both houses of Congress end up in the hands of the GOP? How was Bush elected? etc.

That's why I tend to like candidates who haven't earned the undying enmity of an organized block of the electorate, and the intense dislike and distrust of many in her own party. HRC has that distinction among Democratic candidates of being the least popular among general voters. When you add them up, that's a lot of voters who won't vote for her. More than half by my count. Even if the other side runs a nut.

This happens to everyone -- the act of running for office lowers poll numbers. She's still got better numbers than the people she's going up against, and most important, she's easily the best positioned among the Dems to take on the GOP.

She's not an ideal candidate, and if there were another Obama, I would support Obama part 2. But there isn't one.

That steady climb of HRC unfavorables happened right up to time before the Convention. Look at the 2008 data.

If it comes down to race among unpopular candidates to the bottom, a lot of people are going to skip this one, and G-d help us all.

pretty strong. Nominating a self-described socialist would obviously be a disaster. The other choice is O'Malley, but I don't think he's got much chance even at the nomination.

Hillary is widely liked and respected, and is well positioned against the GOP. The people claiming she's not electable generally hate her, so they can't imagine how other people might feel differently. For example, in another thread, you're still trying to claim that she committed a felony. Believe what you want, of course, but when you're that far into the anti-Hillary camp, it clouds your judgement.

The people who hate Hillary say she isn't electable because they hate her. They aren't worth listening to. And you are very right -- they were wrong about the debate (they actually believed online polls LOL) -- so why should we believe them now?

At least you didn't cite a national poll, as if we had a national popular vote.

HW Bush was the most experienced presidential candidate of the last few decades. Did that make him good at the job? Perhaps using checkmarks on the resume is not the best metric.


Actually, she's a bit to the right of what most Americans want. For example, means-testing Social Security isn't very popular.


So gender is very important....except when it isn't.


As long as you're over 50 now. And weren't abused by "tough on crime" policies.


The swing voters you describe are now 11% of the electorate. They have not decided elections since 1992.

A much larger block of voters are technically "independent", in that they are not registered with a party, but they will always vote with that party. What is variable is whether or not they vote.

Clinton massively excites Republican-leaning independents to vote against her. Turnout among those voters will be very high with Clinton on our ticket. They actually can be motivated to vote against the Democrat.

Clinton does not excite Democratic-leaning independents. Turnout among those voters will be low. They can not be motivated to vote against the Republican. They just won't vote if you do not excite them.

That is an extremely dangerous situation for us. It is exactly the scenario that caused our losses in 2010 and 2014. And it is precisely the scenario you utterly ignore. Trump being a piece of shit doesn't matter. Democratic-leaning independents aren't looking to vote against the Republican. They're looking for reasons to vote for the Democrat. Any time you spend talking about Republicans is wasted when trying to win their vote.

This doesn't mean she can't manage to put together 270 electoral votes. It does mean she won't be able to get my state's 12 (Obama got them in 2008, lost them in 2012).

identify as moderate.

Another question. Weren't you convinced that Bernie was going to surge after the first debate, when people finally saw his genuine progressivism next to whatever you don't like about Hillary? Have you revised your worldview now that that belief has proven false?

The number floats around 8-12% over the last 10-ish years. IIRC, it was the recent PPP poll that showed 11%.

No.

I believed it would gain him some in overall standings in the short term. And it has - he got an equal or bigger bump than Clinton in most polls. The larger effect is on is "Don't know enough about him" results. Over time, that will improve his overall standing - People have to hear about him and consider him a "serious" candidate to bring up his "headline" number in polls.

Overall standing is far more complex than a single debate. Life isn't like a mediocre political movie like "The American President".

And your attack on me did not change that are ignoring the problem of exciting Democratic-leaning independents.

This is just flat denial. The polls aren't hard to read, it's simple math, and Clinton's lead has expanded in post-debate polls.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251705181

The flaw in your argument is that you think Democratic-leaning independents are to the left of the Democratic party, rather than in between the Dems and the Reps.

Since you're so insistent on having everything backed by polls. And keep in mind, if you treat them as one single mass of voters, you're averaging Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning.

As for only 11% swing voters, here's a nice academic paper covering the subject overall.

Here's a story covering a recent Gallup poll that says 10% are true "swing" voters and provides yet more background. Including showing that Democratic-leaning independents are not to the right of the party.

And simple math would show there's more than two people in those polls.

Additionally, simple math would tell you that someone who starts at 25% and goes to 27% has increased by more than someone who started at 50% and went to 53%. 3% is a larger percentage of 25%.

I would say that after the endless House bgazi/egazi sideshow, it would seem that Hill is the most vetted candidate in the history of democracy. Bar none. I guess we could thank the Repubs, but I doubt their motives eere pure.